Presumption even arrogance abounded over the holiday weekend celebrating America's 250th anniversary...

Presumption even arrogance abounded over the holiday weekend celebrating America's 250th anniversary, commemorating of course "national" independence, not "personal" independence. Among the outspoken many Right or Left, Conservative or Liberal, Republican or Democrat, whether per online comments, newspaper or magazine articles, TV broadcasts too, many implied concurrences for their present editorial, narrative, and critique by referring to some preferred ideological ancestor(s) as "rolling in their graves." The implications suggest if alive today, their preferred ideological ancestor(s) would agree obviously with them thus equally appalled towards opposing views.

Let us attempt to be observant, logical, then consistent; the best we (humans alive today) can do is to cite past writers and thinkers therefore quote their writings per books, essays, pamphlets, articles, documents, letters, notes, etc., then voice our own concurrences, not assume their concurrences for something declared today. Again, if the latter, then presumption and arrogance abound.

To exemplify, often to make my arguments regarding the singular human right to consent or dissent, I will emphasize the word "harm" over the Lockean enumeration of rights; life, health, liberty, possessions...

"No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions."

John Locke (1632-1704)
Second Treatise on Government (1690)

It would be erroneous to go beyond my own "subjective" emphasis then to assume Locke emphasized similarly. I could assume Lock chose his words meticulously, yet my risk for error would be no less. I could also attempt to substantiate, that is to say, Locke relied on Epicurus' use of the same word "harm", as much as Jefferson admired too Epicurus' writings on rights, prerogatives, propensities, and moralities per moderations, ignoring of course translation preferences, yet I would still be presuming much...

"Justice is a kind of compact not to harm or be harmed."

Epicurus (341-270 BC)

"I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing every thing rational in moral philosophy which Greece & Rome have left us."

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
Letter to William Short (1819)

The most I may properly argue is to cite those writers and writings, then state my own emphasis of the word "harm", proceeding further with more observations, quotations, followed by deductions and inductions (ratiocinations), even algebraically Boolean demonstrations to articulate consistencies, then syllogistic propositions. I would grossly cross the reasonable line if by prattle or rant declare Epicurus and Locke would be "rolling in their graves" if anyone would disagree with me hence presumption and arrogance would abound.

I must confess; my own persisting arrogance (rooted in ever present covetousness) would not allow prolonged humbling of myself without the self-preserving moderation (haha) of exonerating myself within the same breath. Yet I defer...

"The climax of the Ten Commandments is the Tenth Commandment – 'Thou shat not covet' – Actually we break this last commandment, not to covet, before we break any of the others. Any time that we break one of the other commandments of God, it means that we have already broken this commandment, in coveting."

Francis August Schaeffer (1912-1984)
True Spirituality (1971)

---

Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.

Is 1:18, Mt 5:9, 2 Tm 2:15, Cl 3:23